20th AFL Team

[Coolangatta]

I'd only be for moving into new Zealand after the giants are at the swans current level and the suns are well established too. Meaning Australia is mostly tied up with strong teams everywhere. They'd be biting off too much going there at the moment.

I also have concerns about the kiwi publics disdain for Australian things.

I really like your suggestion of North to Canberra and Perth 3. I think both of these markets are underrepresented and this would kill two birds with one stone but unfortunately it’s not going to happen.

A pity because if it did, they could have the Hawks maybe split Darwin and Cairns 2 games each to cover top end, Saints cover Auckland, and Giants or Dees play a game in Newcastle.

Could then post 2050 look at another round of expansion if as you say you have 20 strong clubs by then. Because if you don’t, then leave it on 20 teams for as long as needed.

I think in 50 years time the AFL could support 24 teams but they’d have to do it from a position of strength and not have 4-6 clubs on life support.

 

[Bjo187]

I really like your suggestion of North to Canberra and Perth 3. I think both of these markets are underrepresented and this would kill two birds with one stone but unfortunately it’s not going to happen.

A pity because if it did, they could have the Hawks maybe split Darwin and Cairns 2 games each to cover top end, Saints cover Auckland, and Giants or Dees play a game in Newcastle.

Could then post 2050 look at another round of expansion if as you say you have 20 strong clubs by then. Because if you don’t, then leave it on 20 teams for as long as needed.

I think in 50 years time the AFL could support 24 teams but they’d have to do it from a position of strength and not have 4-6 clubs on life support.

Yep 100 percent, the afl admin should be finding a way to make that happy as it sets the competition up for the next 30 years. Dillon I gather is a bit weak, but if they get in a new chairman with some initiative I'm sure they could make it work somehow. I also really like the idea of 9 Vic teams and 11 interstate, it's a better balance.

I also agree on the hawks and one other Vic team playing a game up north so it's not neglected.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I really like your suggestion of North to Canberra and Perth 3. I think both of these markets are underrepresented and this would kill two birds with one stone but unfortunately it’s not going to happen.

A pity because if it did, they could have the Hawks maybe split Darwin and Cairns 2 games each to cover top end, Saints cover Auckland, and Giants or Dees play a game in Newcastle.

Could then post 2050 look at another round of expansion if as you say you have 20 strong clubs by then. Because if you don’t, then leave it on 20 teams for as long as needed.

I think in 50 years time the AFL could support 24 teams but they’d have to do it from a position of strength and not have 4-6 clubs on life support.

I'm not an advocate for relocation, but North would also fit for WA3.

Perth already has 8k North members. And a theoretical Perth team would likely be based in northern Perth, so that would help them keep their identity.

Start with two games a year - one Freo, one West Coast - which helps alleviate the travel burden as much as WA3 would. Then build up games against neutral opposition to test if there's appetite.

I'll reiterate, that I think the time for relocations has passed, but if North were to be relocated, I think a gradual relocation to Perth would make more sense. Then if the build up of games doesn't take, it gives them a chance to back out.

 

[Coolangatta]

I'm not an advocate for relocation, but North would also fit for WA3.

Perth already has 8k North members. And a theoretical Perth team would likely be based in northern Perth, so that would help them keep their identity.

Start with two games a year - one Freo, one West Coast - which helps alleviate the travel burden as much as WA3 would. Then build up games against neutral opposition to test if there's appetite.

I'll reiterate, that I think the time for relocations has passed, but if North were to be relocated, I think a gradual relocation to Perth would make more sense. Then if the build up of games doesn't take, it gives them a chance to back out.

The name checks out: North Perth Kangaroos.

But like you said, the time has passed.

And sandgropers would get annoyed with Vic’s claiming a WA based club as their own.

I think we’d prefer our own clubs as much as Canberra would. I think the reason Canberra is seen as more relocation friendly is because they’d be more likely to take what they can get whether as WA would probably go, “Wellll, we aren’t THAT desperate for more content. Lol Norf.”

I think what’s gonna happen is Canberra gets the 20th licence.

 

[Bjo187]

I'm not an advocate for relocation, but North would also fit for WA3.

Perth already has 8k North members. And a theoretical Perth team would likely be based in northern Perth, so that would help them keep their identity.

Start with two games a year - one Freo, one West Coast - which helps alleviate the travel burden as much as WA3 would. Then build up games against neutral opposition to test if there's appetite.

I'll reiterate, that I think the time for relocations has passed, but if North were to be relocated, I think a gradual relocation to Perth would make more sense. Then if the build up of games doesn't take, it gives them a chance to back out.

I've thought of this myself as north already have a good base there, however 3 issues:

• the pitch to north fans about having their club 5 hours flight away is harder than Canberra.
• the second is trivial, I'm already annoyed all w.a teams have similar colours blue and purple, adding another one might be a bit weird .
• would an ex Vic team grow in the anti east coast W.A, as well as a team of their own would?

 

[RedV3x]

I'm not an advocate for relocation, but North would also fit for WA3.

No,for many reasons.
If anything North to Canberra, for many reasons

 

[Coolangatta]

A brand new team in Canberra would be nice.

Maybe they should just have gather round in WA instead of SA.

We arguably need it more than SA do to help alleviate the travel burden and give the WA market more service.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I've thought of this myself as north already have a good base there, however 3 issues:

• the pitch to north fans about having their club 5 hours flight away is harder than Canberra.
• the second is trivial, I'm already annoyed all w.a teams have similar colours blue and purple, adding another one might be a bit weird .
• would an ex Vic team grow in the anti east coast W.A, as well as a team of their own would?

The second is trivial, but it was actually my biggest qualm, too! Three shades of blue!

I think the third would be the biggest issue. It'd be a bit like the Western Bears attitude currently going on in the NRL. I think the gradual approach would help it a bit, people buying memberships for game access, and presence growing over time as support does, but it would definitely be the biggest issue.

I would support the Canberra Kangaroos if it happened. But it definitely doesn't come with the same fanfare as a new team. Having the excitement that Tasmania are having now would go a long way to giving the team a good start in a contested market.

 

[RedV3x]

I would support the Canberra Kangaroos if it happened. But it definitely doesn't come with the same fanfare as a new team. Having the excitement that Tasmania are having now would go a long way to giving the team a good start in a contested market.

That's correct but relocation offers:

1. The ability of quick action and easing in with number of games.
2. Add yellow to blue and white and you've got capital colours and a good name.
3. Least travel of any relocation.
4. Relocated clubs have good records.
5. Relocated clubs have good Melbourne support.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

No,for many reasons.
If anything North to Canberra, for many reasons

I think that time has passed. North did play 3 matches annually in Canberra from 2001-06, but then left us as they had a more lucrative offer to play these games in the Gold Coast - leaving a bad taste amongst some Canberra fans. They have since only played ONE game in Canberra in the past 18 years!

North have also changed their constitution to make it very hard for re-location to happen, after they rejected the AFL’s offer to relocate to the Gold Coast.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Something that came up in another thread, but what process would the AFL use to select the 20th team?

The soccer a-league used an expression of interest process, but in the case of the Giants and Gold Coast, the AFL Commission decided on the location. For Tasmania, the state government lobbied unsolicited, forcing the AFL Commission to make a decision.

Which process would benefit the 3 realistic candidates for Team 20 the most - WA3, Canberra and NT(with or without North Queensland)?

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

I think that time has passed. North did play 3 matches annually in Canberra from 2001-06, but then left us as they had a more lucrative offer to play these games in the Gold Coast - leaving a bad taste amongst some Canberra fans. They have since only played ONE game in Canberra in the past 18 years!

The Canberra relocation proposal has been put to North multiple times since 1984.

There were ongoing talks through the late '80s into the early '90s, when North found success with Pagan and Carey.

There were talks again through the 2000s when North was regularly playing in Canberra.

It's not like AFL Canberra and its predecessors and various ACT governments haven't tried to make it happen. Repeatedly.

After 40 years, these talks have gone precisely nowhere.

Unless there's a change of heart at North, or the AFL is willing to force the issue, the Canberra Kangaroos are a non-starter.

A standalone Canberra-based club that uses Ainslie or Eastlakes and their pokies palaces, as a starting point (as happened in the NEAFL with the Canberra Demons) would probably be far more viable financially than a relocated North.

 

[neogh]

The Canberra relocation proposal has been put to North multiple times since 1984.

There were ongoing talks through the late '80s into the early '90s, when North found success with Pagan and Carey.

There were talks again through the 2000s when North was regularly playing in Canberra.

It's not like AFL Canberra and its predecessors and various ACT governments haven't tried to make it happen. Repeatedly.

After 40 years, these talks have gone precisely nowhere.

Unless there's a change of heart at North, or the AFL is willing to force the issue, the Canberra Kangaroos are a non-starter.

A standalone Canberra-based club that uses Ainslie or Eastlakes and their pokies palaces, as a starting point (as happened in the NEAFL with the Canberra Demons) would probably be far more viable financially than a relocated North.

Does Ainslie and Eastlake have decent amount of cash like Southport (Gold Coast)? One of the biggest shame of the Gold Coast bid was not giving Southport the licence.

 

[Saucy]

I really like your suggestion of North to Canberra and Perth 3. I think both of these markets are underrepresented and this would kill two birds with one stone but unfortunately it’s not going to happen.

A pity because if it did, they could have the Hawks maybe split Darwin and Cairns 2 games each to cover top end, Saints cover Auckland, and Giants or Dees play a game in Newcastle.

Could then post 2050 look at another round of expansion if as you say you have 20 strong clubs by then. Because if you don’t, then leave it on 20 teams for as long as needed.

I think in 50 years time the AFL could support 24 teams but they’d have to do it from a position of strength and not have 4-6 clubs on life support.

The perfect timeline would have been South Melbourne relocating to Sydney in 1982, North Melbourne relocating to Canberra in 1984 & Fitzroy relocating to Brisbane in 1986. All 3 teams would be in strong positions 40 years on and Aussie Rules would have more of a foothold in the ACT.

 

[Bjo187]

The perfect timeline would have been South Melbourne relocating to Sydney in 1982, North Melbourne relocating to Canberra in 1984 & Fitzroy relocating to Brisbane in 1986. All 3 teams would be in strong positions 40 years on and Aussie Rules would have more of a foothold in the ACT.

It would have been good, but what was Canberra's population back then? Would have been tiny. Relocations would have been a great way to build the national comp, whilst keeping the fabric and supporters of the original clubs.

 

[Saucy]

It would have been good, but what was Canberra's population back then? Would have been tiny. Relocations would have been a great way to build the national comp, whilst keeping the fabric and supporters of the original clubs.

It would have been hard early on. The Raiders joined the NRL in 1982 and did well. Sydney nearly died in the 90s too.

 

[Canberra Pear]

It would have been good, but what was Canberra's population back then? Would have been tiny. Relocations would have been a great way to build the national comp, whilst keeping the fabric and supporters of the original clubs.

Canberra had about 250k people then. About two thirds more people than Geelong had at the same time.

Canberra was also more footy-inclined back then so it probably had more footy fans than Geelong at the time.

 

[Saucy]

This is my perfect timeline league:

Adelaide Crows
Brisbane Lions
Canberra Kangaroos
Carlton Blues
Collingwood Magpies
Essendon Bombers
Footscray Bulldogs
Fremantle Dockers
Geelong Cats
Gold Coast Sharks
Hawthorn Hawks
Melbourne Demons
Perth Eagles
Perth Miners
Port Adelaide Pirates
Richmond Tigers
St Kilda Saints
Sydney Swans
Tasmania Devils
Western Sydney Giants

It's perfect.

 

[Bjo187]

Speaking just the other day of the Southport stuff up by the AFL, they have just made their second VFL grand final in a row, or is it their third?

Gee that winning culture (forget the 40 mill revenue per year of their hotel and club too) would have been handy wouldn't it. Instead of the disaster the suns have been on field for 14 years.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

Does Ainslie and Eastlake have decent amount of cash like Southport (Gold Coast)? One of the biggest shame of the Gold Coast bid was not giving Southport the licence.

Here's Ainslie's annual report for 2023, if you're interested: https://ainsliegroup.com.au/wp-cont...SLIE_Annual-Report-2023-FINAL-WEB-REDUCED.pdf

The short answer is that it had $28.3 million in revenue in 2023, and $34 million in net assets (that's assets after debt and other liabilities).

The club's assets include its main social club at Alan Ray Oval in Ainslie, as well the Gungahlin Golf Club.

Yes, it owns a golf course.

Its total profit for the year was $850,000 (after just under $1 million in community donations).

That might not sound like much, but keep in mind that profit is after funding many of the expenses that a standalone AFL club would need to fund out of its own pocket.

So it already funds a board of directors and full-time managers. A standalone club would need to pay those salaries out if revenue.

It funds a senior men's and women's team in the AFL Canberra competition. A standalone club would need to fund a reserves team.

It already has general admin staff, member services staff, IT, marketing, bookkeepers/accountants, and many of the off-field staff that an AFL club would also need to operate.

It already has junior boys and girls teams. A standalone club would need to build and fund an academy/development programming from scratch.

It already has a training ground.

The profit is with all if those expenses already accounted for.

And long term, if you wanted to convert the golf course into an elite training facility like the one Hawthorn is building in Dingley, it already owns the land to do it.

So, assuming you could get the ACT government to accept those community grants going to fund an AFL team, that's $1.8 million.

Add in $3 million from the ACT government and that's $4.8 million.

Add in TV rights distributions from the AFL and that's between $11 million at the low end (Collingwood, West Coast, Essendon, Hawthorn, Richmond) to $25 million (Gold Coast, GWS). Middle of the road is Sydney with $16 million.

Source: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...s/news-story/3425722d96a28b632b3eeae1a17c5a6b

So that's $15.8m funded like Collingwood or West Coast, $20.8m funded like Sydney, or $29.8m funded like GWS or Gold Coast, with many expenses already covered by existing operations.

On to stadium deals. Here's a good thread explaining clean and non-clean stadium deals: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...the-sa-footy-paradigm-shift-happening.554729/

And here's an excellent article that discusses stadium deals in the ACT: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/st...ghts-changes-loom-for-canberras-new-afl-deal/

The thing that could make an Ainslie or Eastlakes bid compelling is they both already own and operate hospitality and catering businesses.

So you could potentially have a situation where an Ainslie-based AFL club pays a peppercorn rent to the ACT government for an expanded Manuka Oval or a new oval stadium, and then gets the catering contract for that venue.

All of this is before a single corporate box or sponsorship has been sold. It's before a single ticket has been sold. And it's before a single AFL membership has been sold.

(On that last point, it's worth noting Ainslie already has around 40,000 junior footy/AFL Canberra/social club members. That's a good database to start promoting AFL memberships and tickets to.)

Please note that a lot of what I've written above is all back-of-the-envelope calculations.

There's likely to be some additional startup funding needed from either the AFL or the ACT government, especially for a stadium.

And like an AFL club, it won't be viable long term if it can't grow a strong membership and sponsorship base.

But.

It would have a very solid asset base, would have a strong starting position, and go a long way towards being viable even before sponsorships and memberships are taken into account.

 

[Coolangatta]

This is my perfect timeline league:

Adelaide Crows
Brisbane Lions
Canberra Kangaroos
Carlton Blues
Collingwood Magpies
Essendon Bombers
Footscray Bulldogs
Fremantle Dockers
Geelong Cats
Gold Coast Sharks
Hawthorn Hawks
Melbourne Demons
Perth Eagles
Perth Miners
Port Adelaide Pirates
Richmond Tigers
St Kilda Saints
Sydney Swans
Tasmania Devils
Western Sydney Giants

It's perfect.

Mine is similar to that but West Coast instead of Perth and maybe the Miners are called the Quokkas or something like that. I’d like to see a big WA based poll.

Secondary markets would be:

Hawks 2 Darwin
Dogs 2 Ballarat
Dees 1 Alice
Sharks 1 Cairns
Giants 1 Newcastle
Saints 1 Auckland

Have 20 strong clubs by 2050 and then maybe look at Auckland and Newcastle for expansion depending on crowds and ratings.

I think we’ll end up getting something similar to this but with 1 extra Vic club and 1 less WA club.

 

[Dogflogger]

you guys dont think the league is shit enough with the amount of teams we have already?

 

[MelbourneGWS]

NRL has pulled in significant Commonwealth $ for a PNG team in 2028. Not sure if NT/ NQ can use this to get Albo to prop up an AFL team

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/600m-deal-rocks-nrl-as-historic-19th-club-confirmed/news-story/3ec3f92b86844d76b69eb049f005845a

 

[neogh]

NRL has pulled in significant Commonwealth $ for a PNG team in 2028. Not sure if NT/ NQ can use this to get Albo to prop up an AFL team

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/600m-deal-rocks-nrl-as-historic-19th-club-confirmed/news-story/3ec3f92b86844d76b69eb049f005845a

As much as this is outright ridiculous, at least this is a diplomatic issue, unlike the NT.

 

[Bjo187]

NRL has pulled in significant Commonwealth $ for a PNG team in 2028. Not sure if NT/ NQ can use this to get Albo to prop up an AFL team

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/600m-deal-rocks-nrl-as-historic-19th-club-confirmed/news-story/3ec3f92b86844d76b69eb049f005845a

Foxtel article:

"PNG won’t be the only team to receive funding, with a $60 million license fee to be shared across the 17 clubs in the competition ahead of their entry.

Every franchise will reportedly pocked around $3.5 million, and Peter V’landys is reportedly currently visiting each club to explain his plans for expansion in the coming years."

Absolutely disgraceful. They have fabricated a way to line the pockets of every NRL club with our tax dollars. Albo's conflict of interest is truly astounding.

To put this in perspective, the majority of AFL clubs make profits of only a few hundred k per year or even losses.

$3.5 million is huge for a sporting club in Australia, especially for doing absolutely nothing other than have a p.m that loves the NRL and wants it to be the dominant code in Australia.